Thursday, June 30, 2005

Time Reveals Sources

According to a report in The New York Times, Time magazine has agreed to provide documents that identify sources to a grand jury investigating the leak of the identity of a CIA employee. Under certain circumstances, leaking such information is a serious crime. Time's action came in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that two reporters and the companies they work for, Time magazine and The New York Times, are not above the law.

Time magazine's position is appropriate, although it's sad that the issue had to go all the way to the Supreme Court:

Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said he made the decision after much reflection.

"I found myself really coming to the conclusion," he said, "that once the Supreme Court has spoken in a case involving national security and a grand jury, we are not above the law and we have to behave the way ordinary citizens do."


The NYT, which along with its reporter continues to refuse to obey the law, observed in a nearly hysterical tone:

The announcement by a major news organization that it would disclose the identities of its confidential sources in response to a subpoena appears to be without precedent in living memory and suggests a turning point in the relationship between the press and the government. The news media have been under growing pressure and scrutiny over issues of accuracy, credibility and political bias.

Issues of accuracy, credibility, and political bias. Indeed.

6 Comments:

Blogger John Walter said...

Actually, by attaching an identity to the leaker, Time might be doing the Dems a big favor by reopening what had been a stillborn, election year scandal.

10:27 PM, June 30, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

It'll be interesting to see how it all finally plays out. It's obvious that both of the Wilsons are phonies. All of their friends and neighbors and party-mates knew where she worked, and that's probably a factor in the case. But, if someone in the White House did intentionally burn a CIA officer who was under official cover, then they should fry him or her.

11:17 AM, July 01, 2005  
Blogger Sailor said...

The law that was allegedly violated was intended to prevent the outing of field agents. The irony here is that Plame is not now, never was and likely will never be a field agent. She is and was an analyst.

9:41 PM, July 01, 2005  
Blogger Gindy said...

I just can't believe that this investigation is still going on.

11:48 AM, July 02, 2005  
Anonymous Earl Bockenfeld said...

This weekend the story is coming out and it's being reported at least, that Karl Rove committed a twofer, of intentionally burning a CIA officer and lying to a grand jury by saying the calls he made to journalists was after reading the Novak article.

The republicans will, of course, be outraged more by the lying under oath, than the treason by a political operative holding a White House office.

1:14 PM, July 02, 2005  
Blogger Tom Carter said...

Earl, divulging the identity of a CIA employee may or may not be a crime. Depends on a number of variables, and I don't think it's publicly known yet how that will fall out. Perjury, however, is perjury.

Assuming both are crimes, it still doesn't amount to treason, legally.

However, if Rove is guilty of either or both of these crimes, then he should pay the full price. I think all reasonable people, Democrats and Republicans alike, would agree with that.

5:31 PM, July 02, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home